2015, will you go Windows 9 or steam OS?

[PrincessFrosty]

Build a steam box, suddenly can't play 80% of my games...makes perfect sense.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Might jump on 9 at home. It might be to Win 8 what Win 7 was to Vista. I dodged Vista, and I've liked Win 7 ever since I started using it. Pisses me off that MS is forcing gamers to update their OS to get the most benefit from DX, but maybe there's a reason I just don't understand.

The reason is money. It's the same reason that SteamOS isn't really appealing to a lot of people. MS can say, "hey, we know you want to hang on to Windows 7, and you can, but look at all these cool new DirectX features that are only available with Windows 8." It's a marketing strategy. If I want to take advantage of DirectX 11.2, I NEED to buy Windows 8. SteamOS doesn't have anything like that. They've specifically stated there won't be exclusive titles. Can you imagine if Half-Life 3 was SteamOS only? That would move some units. But without some exclusive feature, there's no selling point.

 

[Lil Frier]

If 9 is a $40 upgrade like 8 was (actually got it for free through my school), I'll switch. Otherwise, I'll probably stick with 8 until I do a new build, which probably wouldn't happen until 2016-2017.

I will never touch SteamOS, not as a primary OS, at least. Windows might not be free, but it will give me a bigger library than SteamOS, and it will let me do all of the stuff I already do on my PC.

 

[smackababy]

The reason is money. It's the same reason that SteamOS isn't really appealing to a lot of people. MS can say, "hey, we know you want to hang on to Windows 7, and you can, but look at all these cool new DirectX features that are only available with Windows 8." It's a marketing strategy. If I want to take advantage of DirectX 11.2, I NEED to buy Windows 8. SteamOS doesn't have anything like that. They've specifically stated there won't be exclusive titles. Can you imagine if Half-Life 3 was SteamOS only? That would move some units. But without some exclusive feature, there's no selling point.

It might not just be marketing. There could be kernel changes that make certain DX features only available for certain kernels. I am not saying that IS the case, just that it might be.

 

[Imaginer]

Also, the whole "open source" mentality would be nice, if I was a developer or going down to the code of a program making use of the code. Otherwise, I would support a solid software suite that is offered. Current ones out are namely under Windows.

And I can run add-ons and snippets of code anyways within AutoCAD, make custom things with Manga Studio, and use Painter's set of customizable features. If I wanted more, I would collaborate with the software developers amongst others if I have issues and let them (who know what they are doing) take care of these things.

Open source, I would agree if it allowed the community to change function and features that doesn't dramatically change things that a major release is needed every month to keep up for the sake of change. And they tend to release EVERYTHING on different cadences, features, a potpourri of confusion. In short, a lack of coherent control in many cases. A lack of centralized software configuration management on a high level, to even have a product be whole.

And the open source mentality right now, means "free". As in, why pay for crucial software to begin with? Or any software for that matter since it is thin air. That is akin to why pay a programmer for his time and effort, paying a sidewalk musician whatever you want in change to hear amateur performances, and expect them to make a solid living doing these things. I emphasize amateur when I associate open source.

Not to say, there does not exist open source code in Windows programs. There are out there as well. It is just that stigma behind that because the OS kernel is not open, it means nothing else can be done freely.

 

[Wyndru]

After going through windows 3.11, 95, 98, 2k, xp and now windows 7, I am getting tired of learning a new OS just to play my games.

What is there to learn in a new OS? Especially if you are staying with Windows, not much changes from version to version (at least not the fundamental usage).

Sure, certain things change location but overall it's not like you need to learn a lot to get a game operating in Windows. Double click on installation file, enjoy game...

 

[gorcorps]

It might not just be marketing. There could be kernel changes that make certain DX features only available for certain kernels. I am not saying that IS the case, just that it might be.

I think that's true to a point, but what's shady is that they don't bother releasing an update for Windows 7 that could allow the same thing. I don't think there's a good reason not to.

Every tech company pulls shit like this unfortunately so there's nobody to turn to to "vote with my wallet" so to speak.

 

[Texashiker]

What is there to learn in a new OS? Especially if you are staying with Windows, not much changes from version to version (at least not the fundamental usage).

Just learning where stuff has been moved to.

For a decade removing a program was under add/uninstall programs. Then it gets moved to programs and features.

 

[Nintendesert]

I think the best we can hope for from SteamOS and AMD's Mantle is that it lights a fire under Microsoft's ass and they greatly improve DX. I may be wrong, time will tell.

 

[XiandreX]

Is it time for gamers to switch to a new operating system besides windows?

News is saying windows 9 could be here as early as April 2015 - http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2014/01/13/windows-9-threshold-release-date-april-2015/1

Windows 7 main stream support ends January 2015 - http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle

I figure microsoft will use windows 7 end of life as a selling point for windows 9.

After going through windows 3.11, 95, 98, 2k, xp and now windows 7, I am getting tired of learning a new OS just to play my games.

Maybe it is time to switch to an operating developed by gamers for gamers.

If steam has their steam OS running by the end of 2014 would you try it rather than buying windows 9? I figure the end of 2014 is going to be decision time for a lot of gamers. Either stay with windows 7, go with windows 9, or try the Steam OS. If Steam is giving their steam OS away for free, why not try it?

Honestly nowadays a lot of gamers are well over the age of 20 and in fact a lot of us are 30-40 and older. I personally use my computer for far more than just games. I am 36 as a reference.
Imho Windows will always be chosen over Steam because of its flexiblity.
Now for people that only care about gaming and nothing else? Perhaps but Steam OS will have to prove itself over a decent period of time.

 

[Doppel]

It's going to take a few years at least to get developers to make their games for Linux too. Steam OS needs to show that it can attract the users before the developers make the games Linux compatible. Already we see many games now do Windows and Mac versions which is great, so I think it's only a matter of time.

I have a story.

In 1999 I was so {%]^ing tired of Windows 98's lack of stability that I got Redhat. It was common knowledge among geeks that Linux was growing fast and ubiquitous support by mainstream apps was just around the corner. I installed Redhat, but it seemed a bother, so I then got a beta of Windows 2000. It was stable, supported multi-tasking, and ran most stuff (even though it was a server OS). I have not touched Linux since. And fourteen years after my story begins we are still waiting on ubiquitous support.

The moral of the story is that there is absolutely no reason to think Linux will ever become a viable desktop OS for the great unwashed masses, and those masses remain the key target of the big budget PC games. Just because Valve may wish everything becomes Linux compliant does not mean it will happen.

 

[Topweasel]

I'll build a low cost Steam box. But it won't be to play games natively. It will be to mirrorcast games from my desktop to a steambox in my bedroom. That desktop is just too unwieldy to move to my room.

 

[Maximilian]

Because you only looked at 8 skin deep. 8 has benefits from a dedicated Windows store AND does not stop any outside installs on the desktop space of traditional desktop software. It also builds on 7 more so.

If anything, it is 7 with more. And I made mention before, the Start Screen is much better than revealing a desktop full of icons in a limited quantity and arrangement versus horizontally scrolling a more infinite tile (icon) setup.

Pinning things to the Start menu, is like pinning things to the forefront of the Start screen. Revealing "All Programs" is but that down arrow away at the lower left area of the Start Screen in 8.1. 8.1 brings right click Start icon admin functions.

Taskbar still remains the same in the desktop. Task Manager is better in every way.

I sound like a broken record trying to set things straight. But if going with something new means ditching accumulated and currently used software in scavenging for "not even perfect or even 60% capable" software, then I stick to what works. I am not just talking games at this point either.

Which is why it utterly utterly tanked and became vista 2.0 :whiste:

 

[Maximilian]

Ill probably get 9 for free through dreamspark, might go with that. Got linux on the server the htpc and the laptop would have it but long story drivers suck.

Linux/steamOS wont be on my main rig unless I can run stuff like LoL or the fallout series, maybe civ as well. I couldn't give a toss about older games running or not just the newer ones.

 

[Elcs]

Dualboot?

I'm very happy with Windows 8.1 Pro and Win 9 might be better but SteamOS could be interesting to fiddle around with, especially with a few specific games.

 

[Texashiker]

The moral of the story is that there is absolutely no reason to think Linux will ever become a viable desktop OS for the great unwashed masses, and those masses remain the key target of the big budget PC games. Just because Valve may wish everything becomes Linux compliant does not mean it will happen.

We are not talking about a bunch of high school kids working on the steam os part-time. This is valve and its pockets full of cash.

When gabe and his buddies approached game distributors about half-life, a lot of companies turned him down. When half-life was finally released it set a new standard for FPS games.

If we can say one thing about Valve, they keep raising the bar.

 

[smackababy]

We are not talking about a bunch of high school kids working on the steam os part-time. This is valve and its pockets full of cash.

When gabe and his buddies approached game distributors about half-life, a lot of companies turned him down. When half-life was finally released it set a new standard for FPS games.

If we can say one thing about Valve, they keep raising the bar.

Raising what bar exactly? How to continuously make money while producing almost nil? Half-Life might have set the standard, but that was over 10 years ago. I've said numerous times, Valve doesn't innovate. They haven't since HL.

Gabe wants to get away from Windows because it is competition for his digital distribution software. If the Windows App Store offers developers / publishers a better deal than Steam, why wouldn't they go with it? Steam has the users now and can afford to move off Windows, and away from the competition, but if you actually think this is FOR GAMERS, you're not particularly smart.

And, there is a reason SteamOS isn't called SteamLinux; same reason Android isn't called LinuxMobile by Google.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

We are not talking about a bunch of high school kids working on the steam os part-time. This is valve and its pockets full of cash.

When gabe and his buddies approached game distributors about half-life, a lot of companies turned him down. When half-life was finally released it set a new standard for FPS games.

If we can say one thing about Valve, they keep raising the bar.

There's still the lack of an incentive to convince people to use the product. It doesn't run as many games or programs as Windows OS, so it can't replace a traditional computer. It's not as cheap as Xbox One or PS4, so it can't compete at a price point with traditional consoles. Who is the market for this product? People with enough disposable income to spend on a secondary dedicated gaming PC with a custom OS that limits their options of games? There's an incentive to buying Windows; certain pieces of software require it. There's an incentive to buying a console; the hardware is all identical and you can plug in a game and play without worrying about customizing your experience. There's absolutely no incentive to SteamOS or Steam Machines right now. Unless Valve can produce one (and requiring it for Valve's marquee franchises like Half-Life, Team Fortress, Counter-Strike, Left 4 Dead and Portal would certainly offer an incentive), the market for this is just "people with significant disposable income who want something new," and that's nebulous enough to be meaningless.

 

[Skel]

We are not talking about a bunch of high school kids working on the steam os part-time. This is valve and its pockets full of cash.

When gabe and his buddies approached game distributors about half-life, a lot of companies turned him down. When half-life was finally released it set a new standard for FPS games.

If we can say one thing about Valve, they keep raising the bar.

With respect as I'm not attacking you.. I'm always interested in how everyone seems to know Valve's budgets and how much money they have. Just because he turned down an offer to sell the company doesn't mean he's "rolling in it".

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Raising what bar exactly? How to continuously make money while producing almost nil? Half-Life might have set the standard, but that was over 10 years ago. I've said numerous times, Valve doesn't innovate. They haven't since HL.

Ummm... Portal?

 

[Skel]

Ummm... Portal?

Wasn't Portal already complete and ready to go when Valve bought it? I remember something like that when the first one came out. I would also say that Valve has innovated more than just one FPS, the marketplace itself is nothing to sneeze at. I just wouldn't say they've changed everything every time they've done something. In many ways, Valve is like the Apple of gaming where only it's acolytes really get it.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Wasn't Portal already complete and ready to go when Valve bought it? I remember something like that when the first one came out. I would also say that Valve has innovated more than just one FPS, the marketplace itself is nothing to sneeze at. I just wouldn't say they've changed everything every time they've done something. In many ways, Valve is like the Apple of gaming where only it's acolytes really get it.

According to Wikipedia, there was a team at Digipen that developed a game similar to Portal called Narbacular Drop. Valve was impressed with it, so it hired that team to develop the concept further, which became Portal. So it wasn't that Valve bought the license to a full game and rebranded it, they brought in the entire team to turn it into a full-fledged game.

 

[Skel]

According to Wikipedia, there was a team at Digipen that developed a game similar to Portal called Narbacular Drop. Valve was impressed with it, so it hired that team to develop the concept further, which became Portal. So it wasn't that Valve bought the license to a full game and rebranded it, they brought in the entire team to turn it into a full-fledged game.

Fair enough.. I knew that Valve hired all the people that made Portal to work on it, but I was under the impression that it was already done and ready to go. I guess what I was thinking was Valve hired the people because they had innovated with Portal (or what would become Portal), not hired them and then innovated Portal... which is really splitting hairs.

 

[Topweasel]

Wasn't Portal already complete and ready to go when Valve bought it? I remember something like that when the first one came out. I would also say that Valve has innovated more than just one FPS, the marketplace itself is nothing to sneeze at. I just wouldn't say they've changed everything every time they've done something. In many ways, Valve is like the Apple of gaming where only it's acolytes really get it.

It could be said that its the same as Apple or MS haters and they ignore the glaringly obvious just to nit pick the smaller things.

Portal 2 or LFD are two examples of newer approaches to SP and MP respectively target games and they paid good money to nurture and bring those to the community and are devoid of the kind of decisions other corporate entities would have forced on them (and if Valve could buy them then that means they were for sale, which means we could have easily and probably without Valve had EA buy them). Besides that you do have the advancements in story telling and approach in both HL1 and HL2, with HL2 still reverberating in our action and FPS games. Then you have Steam which started life as a matchmaking client, then a distribution client, to now a complete and competitive store front that everyone else emulates.

The also jump-started things like DLC and Steam isn't as perfect as some would let you believe. But there is a balance. In the end they are a big company pushing something new out so that they have an option in the market if everything goes wrong with MS. Who knows what their limits are for continuing the project. Who knows what they consider a success. It's something new and they have had success moving in new directions in the past and seem to be one of the few companies that respects even if they don't trust their customers.

 

[Texashiker]

With respect as I'm not attacking you.. I'm always interested in how everyone seems to know Valve's budgets and how much money they have. Just because he turned down an offer to sell the company doesn't mean he's "rolling in it".

They have to be doing something right.

I wonder how much valve makes in a single day from TF2 micro-transactions?

There's still the lack of an incentive to convince people to use the product. It doesn't run as many games or programs as Windows OS, so it can't replace a traditional computer. It's not as cheap as Xbox One or PS4, so it can't compete at a price point with traditional consoles. Who is the market for this product?

People who are tired of windows 8 and the people who do not like windows 9.

The same OS on the living room console and your home computer. Sounds like a good selling point to me.